Savage Attack: Clerk Beats Customers with Steel Rod

This is a discussion on Savage Attack: Clerk Beats Customers with Steel Rod within the Carry & Defensive Scenarios forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; "My question would be why do they keep a steel rod in the back of a Mc Donalds ?"
For prying the morbidly obese stuck ...

The women hopped over the counter and chased him with the intent to attack him, and the video shows that he didn't go too far to get the rod. Looks like self-defense to me until he went too far and just kept beating them.

I some way, I think his actions are justified and those women deserve the beating they got, of course he did go too far as well.

Agreed. I think a good lawyer that he can't afford could probably make a case. He did go over board. However based solely on this video who's to say that the threat was ended without view from behind the counter? Can we say from the video that the females weren't in pursuit of attack while on the floor out of view behind the counter? Just wonder what you all think.

Agreed. I think a good lawyer that he can't afford could probably make a case. He did go over board. However based solely on this video who's to say that the threat was ended without view from behind the counter? Can we say from the video that the females weren't in pursuit of attack while on the floor out of view behind the counter? Just wonder what you all think.

This was sort of my take on it.

With those two crazy 'ladies' being as aggressive as they were, who is to say that the threat ended when they went to the floor. AND, think of it from the perspective of castle doctrine. If someone broke into your home would you stop whacking them (assuming you didn't shoot them) till they were unquestionably not getting up off the floor.

The clerk--prior record or not-- was not merely protecting himself but he was also in a sense "in charge" of protection of the place where he worked. I think McD owes him a high priced lawyer and a promotion.

If the Union is once severed, the line of separation will grow wider and wider, and the controversies which are now debated and settled in the halls of legislation will then be tried in fields of battle and determined by the sword.
Andrew Jackson

To me it looked like he whacked the first one and knocked her to the floor, swung twice at the second one, and knocked her to the floor, If he'd stopped then, self defense. However, he then proceeds to repeatedly whack the first one again. At this point he's crossed the line from self defense to assault with intent to do grave bodily harm or something similar. I think his best chance is either A. The PTSD defense from his prison time, or B. one or more of his coworkers testifying that the first lady was reaching for something that appeared to be a weapon that wasn't shown on the video. Absent a court testimony supporting B he needs to head back to prison for awhile, and those two should accompany him. Personally, I think their charges should be of a graver nature than his.

A 1911 is Not an obsession, it's simply a recognition that it's THE Gun. :-) All others are runner ups. And hey, if all else fails, aim for the nose and fling it to knock out your foe. Let's see y'all do that with a kel-Tec. ;-)

To me it looked like he whacked the first one and knocked her to the floor, swung twice at the second one, and knocked her to the floor, If he'd stopped then, self defense. However, he then proceeds to repeatedly whack the first one again. At this point he's crossed the line from self defense to assault with intent to do grave bodily harm or something similar. I think his best chance is either A. The PTSD defense from his prison time, or B. one or more of his coworkers testifying that the first lady was reaching for something that appeared to be a weapon that wasn't shown on the video. Absent a court testimony supporting B he needs to head back to prison for awhile, and those two should accompany him. Personally, I think their charges should be of a graver nature than his.

What makes you think she wasn't trying to get up to go after him? You can't see from that angle. With all the adrenaline she had going one whack may have put her on the floor but not out of the fight.

This isn't like the pharmacist who paused, then returned to shoot someone who was out of action. This all happened in seconds in the heat of the fight. If you had just one like those two in your home you'd beat them till there was no fight left, just as you would shoot them till you were sure they weren't getting
up to pose a continued danger to you.

Again, McD owes him a lawyer, a pay raise, and some thanks. Somehow I think he won't get it and he'll be forced to plea to something--- and mostly just because of his prior, not what he did here.

If the Union is once severed, the line of separation will grow wider and wider, and the controversies which are now debated and settled in the halls of legislation will then be tried in fields of battle and determined by the sword.
Andrew Jackson

I already said we don't know what she was doing when he began the second round on the first female. I gave one scenario in which it would have been justified though it'll need a courtroom testimony of an eyewitness preferably more than one, to have a chance of clearing him. There could, of course, be other scenario's which would also justify his second round. But, as I said, without such a reason, if she simply mouthed off and he responded with force, that's unjustified, and BOTH the he and the females involved need some jail time, more them than him, but, both nonetheless

A 1911 is Not an obsession, it's simply a recognition that it's THE Gun. :-) All others are runner ups. And hey, if all else fails, aim for the nose and fling it to knock out your foe. Let's see y'all do that with a kel-Tec. ;-)

What makes you think she wasn't trying to get up to go after him? You can't see from that angle. With all the adrenaline she had going one whack may have put her on the floor but not out of the fight.

This isn't like the pharmacist who paused, then returned to shoot someone who was out of action. This all happened in seconds in the heat of the fight. If you had just one like those two in your home you'd beat them till there was no fight left, just as you would shoot them till you were sure they weren't getting
up to pose a continued danger to you.

Again, McD owes him a lawyer, a pay raise, and some thanks. Somehow I think he won't get it and he'll be forced to plea to something--- and mostly just because of his prior, not what he did here.

I agree McDonald's should back their employee, however the franchise manager fired him immediately and McDonald's Corporate is backing them. If you read their statement, there is no mention of the fact the 2 women were responsible for what happened, in fact they basically apologized for the cashier defending himself. They made the statement that their primary concern is the safety of their customers. It doesn't matter to them that their customers are thugs, as long as they spend money there. I sent an e-mail to McDonald's, informing them that I will no longer spend my money at their stores.

I already said we don't know what she was doing when he began the second round on the first female. I gave one scenario in which it would have been justified though it'll need a courtroom testimony of an eyewitness preferably more than one, to have a chance of clearing him. There could, of course, be other scenario's which would also justify his second round. But, as I said, without such a reason, if she simply mouthed off and he responded with force, that's unjustified, and BOTH the he and the females involved need some jail time, more them than him, but, both nonetheless

Sort of depends on what she mouthed. What if they were threats to beat his .....

If the Union is once severed, the line of separation will grow wider and wider, and the controversies which are now debated and settled in the halls of legislation will then be tried in fields of battle and determined by the sword.
Andrew Jackson

The fact that he left to retreive a weapon and returned to use it puts him in deep doo. Now it's "premeditated." Had he grabbed something "at hand" to fend (her/them) off would have been another sttory.

The fact that he left to retreive a weapon and returned to use it puts him in deep doo. Now it's "premeditated." Had he grabbed something "at hand" to fend (her/them) off would have been another sttory.

The way I viewed the video, is he retreated and they pursued him. Once at the back of the story with them in chase he picked up the bar and used it to defend himself. That is not premeditated. He did not appear to find a weapon and then search them out. If they had remained on their side of the counter, the beating would never have happened.